SpaceX will need to pay up for its destruction of an AMOS-6 satellite:
SpaceX may be on the hook to compensate Space Communication Ltd. (Spacecom) for the satellite that was destroyed during the explosion of a Falcon 9 rocket — either with a free trip or $50 million, according to Reuters .
The construction, launch preparation and operation of the AMOS-6 satellite, which would have been used to "significantly expand the variety of communications services provided by Spacecom," reportedly cost the company more than $195 million. The officials from the company also noted that it could also collect upwards of $205 million from Israel Aircraft Industries, which built the satellite. SpaceX hasn't said what kind of insurance it purchased for the rocket, or what that insurance might pay for, Reuters reported. SpaceX wasn't immediately available for comment.
The failure of the launch may also kill a deal for Beijing Xinwei Technology Group to acquire Spacecom.
Related Stories
Two SoylentNews readers sent us this story:
SpaceX concludes AMOS-6 explosion investigation
SpaceX has just released the concluding update to their investigation into the explosion that abruptly terminated the AMOS-6 while the rocket was still being fueled. It confirms the failure of a composite overwrapped pressure vessel inside the second stage LOX tank, and identifies several credible causes. SpaceX believes it now understands the problem well enough to avoid it going forward, and is hoping to return to flight with the Iridum NEXT launch on Jan 8.
SpaceX to Hopefully Resume Launches This Sunday
SpaceX has concluded its investigation into the September 1st accident and will attempt to return to launching satellites starting on January 8th:
An accident investigation team "concluded that one of the three composite overwrapped pressure vessels inside the second stage liquid oxygen tank failed," SpaceX said Monday in a statement on its website. The September failure was likely because of an oxygen buildup or a void in the buckle in the liner of the vessel, the company said.
At this time however SpaceX has not gotten the FAA's approval to resume operations.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates commercial space ventures, still is reviewing the mishap.
"The FAA has not yet issued a license to SpaceX for a launch in January," the agency said by e-mail Tuesday.
Also at Ars Technica and USA Today.
Previously: Spacecom Seeks $50 Million or a Free Flight After SpaceX Rocket Explosion
NASA Advisory Committee Skeptical of SpaceX Manned Refueling Plan
SpaceX Identifies Cause of September Explosion
SpaceX Delays Launches to January
The BBC are reporting an explosion at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, where SpaceX company was readying a rocket for launch.
The cause of the blast is not clear and it is not known if anyone was hurt. Nasa said SpaceX was test-firing a rocket which was due to take a satellite into space this weekend.
Pictures from the scene show a huge plume of smoke rising above the Cape Canaveral complex.
The force of the blast shook buildings several miles away.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @10:14AM
Teenager who cut head open when thrown from seat in fairground horror angry at free rides compensation offer [mirror.co.uk]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @11:41PM
That kid already got his free flight.
(Score: 5, Funny) by SomeGuy on Monday September 05 2016, @11:40AM
When I saw that, the first thing that popped in to my mind was that the rocket and satellite was actually destroyed by a soldier from the future, even as he was being pursued by evil robot minions from his future controlled by the sentient Facebook computer, all ending in a huge fiery explosion.... did he save us all or just delay the inevitable? :)
(Score: 5, Funny) by theluggage on Monday September 05 2016, @12:44PM
Actually, there was a huge dust-up between Captain Kirk, Agent J, 3 incarnations of Doctor Who, at least two guys who looked like Ben Browder, and Malcolm Reynolds (the latter from an alternate universe where Firefly ran for 3 seasons and, therefore, had a mandatory episode in which they travelled back to the 21st century to save the word, in accordance with Rule 37b of TV SF). This is starting to happen even with independent communication satellite launches, because all of the suspects now have at least 10 different instances of themselves attending each Apollo and Space Shuttle launch and its getting impossible to park & avoid meeting great-great-great-grandparents. The inquest will determine if the stray shot that ignited the rocket came from a phaser, a sonic screwdriver, a Jaffa lance or a noisy cricket. Of course, it will all be covered up by the owners of the secret film studio (hidden under the world famous alien defence base at area 51) where they doctored the film of the moon landings to hide the giant hatch saying "Death Star - deliveries only".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 05 2016, @01:11PM
You missed a couple of universes, so you'll never solve this mystery. If you check out the surveillance, and watch carefully, you'll see a pudgy blonde woman with a multi-tool slung on her belt. But, you gotta watch carefully. She's unbelievably strong, and she doesn't just open that hatchway to get inside - she tears it off. She only appears in a few frames, she's that quick.
But, she'll get hers, when she gets trapped under the biggest worm in the galaxy, and sets off a pair of warheads to kill the damned thing.
Her name . . . can't remember her name . . . she's not very good looking, not very sociable or anything . . . can't remember her name . . . Esther Meyer! That's her name! I had to scroll back through the story to find her. Now I've got it open, I'll probably just read it again.
David Drake's Redliners.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday September 05 2016, @12:44PM
You know the little box you ticked and initialed when you declined the insurance? Well, you're going to see it again in court. But seriously, rockets are pretty heavily insured - why is this even an issue? Of course if they decided to just go ahead and risk it without insurance to save a buck... well.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday September 05 2016, @03:50PM
And nothing of value was lost. That was ZuckerJew's satellite, and even worse, the intent was to deploy it to monitor Ooga-Boogas.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday September 06 2016, @02:20PM
The intent was for Facebook to use that satellite to enslave poor people into a Facebook's vision of an Internet prison camp, er . . . um, I meant "walled garden".
A censored, er, . . . wait, I meant uh, "curated" Internet where you only see things that benefit Facebook.
That was the true porpoise of the satellite.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday September 05 2016, @01:02PM
I thought that insurance was pretty standards in these cases [wikipedia.org], and it is. But it turns out that there may be a problem in this case: "Launch insurance provides coverage for the period from the intentional ignition of the engines until the satellite separates from the final stage of the launch vehicle, or it may continue until completion of the testing phase in orbit."
Emphasis mine. In this case, the rocket exploded during a ground test, i.e., before "intentional ignition of the engines" to send it to orbit. So the typical insurance policy would not yet have been in effect.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by theluggage on Monday September 05 2016, @02:07PM
So the typical insurance policy would not yet have been in effect.
...so, are you saying that these 50 squillion dollar satellites aren't insured if the freight aircraft carrying them to the launch site crashes, the hangar burns down or the UPS guy comes when nobody is in and throws it over the fence?
If something that expensive remains uninsured for more than 1 second of its existence then somebody in legal has screwed up. Oh, hang on, I just said that as if it were unlikely...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday September 05 2016, @05:54PM
Looking at the pictures, the rocket exploded well above the engines, possibly in the satellite's own final orbit booster, which I suspect SpaceX had no part in building. The explosion occurred well above the refurbished rocket, just about where the second stage mates with the payload.
Then of course there is the conspiracy theory about a drone (more fun and exciting to call it a UFO) flying near the rocket at the time. The Mirror [mirror.co.uk]. (Hey, its the Mirror, ok? Take it or leave it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by TheB on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:11PM
AMOS-6 was not using a "flight-proven" rocket.
The first reuse of a Falcon 9 rocket was scheduled for the SES-10 mission. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by weeds on Tuesday September 06 2016, @09:33PM
I think you added "to send it into orbit". From what I read, it was an intentional ignition of the engines (IANAL - and proud of it)
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @02:30PM
Dont these kinds of operations have insurance for lost cargo?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday September 06 2016, @02:23PM
If it were insured, can't the insurance company successfully argue . . .
"It's not our fault that the 'anomaly' wasn't powerful enough to blow the payload into orbit."
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Monday September 05 2016, @08:34PM
They could have had the Russians put it up there. There are many options. They chose to go with a young company with comparitively little experience. Shit happens and if they didnt get the right insurance that is their problem. If I buy a car and have it trucked third party to my house, and it is outside the insurance policy I signed with the carrier, I am screwed. Don't see why its any different when a big company doesnt read small print from when I dont.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by snufu on Tuesday September 06 2016, @02:03AM
Why not a dummy payload with similar mass and dimensions?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday September 06 2016, @04:48AM
This was answered by someone in an earlier thread. It's too difficult to install and remove the payload. Perhaps, it's not even possible without taking the rocket down. What would be the point of testing if you have to do a major rebuild right after?